Yang form of YCF ... what was YLC form

[Bob]

There really is no definitive, absolute answer to the question of the name of taijiquan.

Unfortunately I can't find my original Henning article but the pivotal word used in working this issue is "some suggest. . ." and then evidence is brought forth to support the historical claim.

As is typical in the social sciences of academia one often has to think in term of probabilistic statements such as "it is likely that . . ." rather than a dichotomous yes/no or it is/it isn't - or one statement of cautious inferences often used: "It's possible but highly likely or unlikely"

Interestingly, in one sense it kind of knocks out the idea "Well Chen's Taijiquan isn't really Taijiquan because they didn't call it that" because it would seem that Yang Luchan (if we believe the sources that say he existed and it's likely he existed) he didn't seem to refer to his art as "Taijiquan" but rather the name was bestowed upon his art from someone outside of the martial arts circle (likely, given in the cited linked source of my post. But one can always question the validity of the sources and the claim that Chen Fake said it wasn't that name)

Interesting source:

My Thoughts On Tai Chi ~ My Personal Thoughts About The Art of Tai Chi Chuan as Philosophy and Martial Art

The Earlier Names of Tai Chi Chuan Explained
https://taichithoughts.wordpress.com/20 ... explained/

The name T’ai Chi Ch’uan, or Taijiquan (太極拳), wasn’t really common until the late 19th century. The well known scholar Weng Tonghe who was a court examiner in the late 19th century saw Yang Luchan (1799–1872) and dedicated a short poem to him: “Hands holding T’ai chi shakes the whole world, a chest containing ultimate skill defeats a gathering of heroes.”. (In texts about T’ai Chi, Weng is often mentioned as Ong Tong He. Ong is how the family name Weng is written in Fujian dialect, a dialect also common in Taiwan. Sometimes both “Weng Tonghe” and “Ong Tong He” is used together in the same texts meaning two different persons. This is actually a common mistake, maybe originating from someone who collected material from different sources. But it is the same person.)

The 5 previous names of Taijiquan are:
Changquan (长拳 )- “Long Fist”
Sanshiqi (三十七) – “37”
Shisanshi 十三势 – “13 Postures”
Mianquan (绵拳) – “Continuous Fist”
Roushou (软手) – “Soft hand”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Taijiquan Journal
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1 WINTER 2001

"HISTORY: The Origin of the Name ‘Taijiquan”–Stanley Henning"

I recall he pegs the name around 1854 and that is his cited source below:

Zhao Ximin, “Taijiquan 13 Postures Research,” in Republish of China Martial Arts Association, eds., Chinese Martial Arts Historical Materials Collection [Ch.], Vol. 5, 1980, pp. 85-109.

[Doc Stier]

I wish to dispel the idea that nobody knows what form sets were practiced and taught by the first two generations of Yang Style TCC. Many students of those masters migrated to the West in the years prior to WWII and beyond up to the 1950's and 1960's, well before the YCF Style TCC became popular outside of China.

Almost without exception, these immigrant Chinese practitioners taught either an older Large Frame Long Imperial 108 Forms Set or a Medium Frame 90 Forms Set. These sequences of postures learned from the early Yang family masters were well known.

The variations in stylistic interpretation were sometimes apart from the more standard signature look, but in any case, skill levels then we're generally a reflection of how well the individual really understood the core concepts and foundation principles of the style, as witnessed in their ability to personally demonstrate same in their movement. This is still true today and will remain true in the years to come.

[GrahamB]

Many direct students of Yang LuChan (1st generation) migrated to the West? I've never heard of this. Who were they?

[Bao]

"by the first two generations of Yang Style TCC. Many students of those masters migrated to the West in the years prior to WWII"

Students of second generation means third generation as Wu Jianquan and Yang Cheng Fu. Some of them still lived in the 1940s-50s. But I wouldn't be surprised if even some of YLC's close early students left to the US. Many Chinese did around the peak of the goldrush. Others fled after the Boxer rebellion and yet others left China after the fall of the last emperor. Wouldn't be strange at all if Doc is correct.

[yeniseri]

When I was exposed to what was called taijiquan, it was Yang style. I was 12 or 13 years old and the local Chinese association had teachers who happened to have studied
with someone who studied with a Yang style member. I have no knowledge of who or whom but they were immigrants to the Caribbean (Hakka origin mostly but not always
I had some family members and friends (they were usually 1/2 Chinese, usually male) and they were recognized as knowing some high memeber of the local Chinese Association hence my able to play taijiquan
at that stage of life.

NOTE; This is retrospective memory My understanding was limited back then but when I moved to USA, what I saw of Yang style was different and by that time 'some type of standardized'
template took form (later found out to be Yang Chengfu style). The closest teacher to display that Yang style that I remember (from 12-13 years) was Prof Hou Chi Kwang! Lu Hungping also
showed some semblance but whether his expression was actually that, or just old age displaying itself as a template from that era. I do not know nor do I have the answer.
I recall, as best as I could, that there was no appelation of Imperial style or Modern Frame attached to Yang style. Perhaps, some teachers stated as such so my ignorance is showing itself.
I just nevr was attuned to that type of explanation because very few of my teachers explained anything. they just said do and practice.

The closest representation (memory is at times, unreliable but) of taijiquan from my 12 -13 years, from Prof Hou Chi Kwang and Lu Hungping is from the below and it is damm close in form and function, Again, this is not grounded in stone but pretty accurate.

[everything]

the name doesn't really matter. i think that's one of the problems. if we wanted to fight like fedor, it's not really fair to say it's "just" sambo/judo. or that it's "mma style". same with jon jones. if we wanted to box like tyson or mayweather, jr. or ali, it's not really specific enough to say it's "boxing style". i guess it's ok as a starting point. so then people say small frame, large frame, or whatever they say, while assuming they have the "starting point" down. but it doesn't seem like they really do. if we cannot do "basic boxing" or "basic sambo", can we really describe fedor or tyson? it doesn't seem like it. i can watch a few videos to get some 3rd party knowledge I don't really understand.

[origami_itto]

the name doesn't really matter. i think that's one of the problems. if we wanted to fight like fedor, it's not really fair to say it's "just" sambo/judo. or that it's "mma style". same with jon jones. if we wanted to box like tyson or mayweather, jr. or ali, it's not really specific enough to say it's "boxing style". i guess it's ok as a starting point. so then people say small frame, large frame, or whatever they say, while assuming they have the "starting point" down. but it doesn't seem like they really do. if we cannot do "basic boxing" or "basic sambo", can we really describe fedor or tyson? it doesn't seem like it. i can watch a few videos to get some 3rd party knowledge I don't really understand.

The name doesn't matter to the expression of the art, but if one is pretending to be an amateur historian then it merits being called out on ignoring 60 years of history simply because it contradicts the agenda of their narrative.

[Kong Bao Long]

I wish to dispel the idea that nobody knows what form sets were practiced and taught by the first two generations of Yang Style TCC. Many students of those masters migrated to the West in the years prior to WWII and beyond up to the 1950's and 1960's,

Typed as respectful as I can all this a tough sell with me... looking at facts and observations

My observation: Every Person that I've seen who has claimed such, has a questionable linage. Either they learned it from the second cousin of a cousin's uncle, a Nephew on the step Mom's side... a lost disciple who just happened to be a hermit etc .. and always ... the foot print of "historical evidence" that backs up the claim is very small i.e. limited to a select few in some form of "inner circle." the late Erle "the moon man" Montague comes to mind.

That's the first issue... (*disclaimer... I don't know everyone in the world, take the obvious from that)

The second issue I see: Non of the styles that claim to be YCL or "Old Yang style" have very many commonalities... yet, all are from the same source?

I'm not saying what they are doing is bad.. what I am saying is without historical references to back up their claims ... what they are doing is inspired by..... or influenced by..... (A bunch of great arts have been created this way... no slam on anyone) but original it is not. (again the late Erle "the moon Man" Montague comes to mind... )

The facts: Looking at this from a historical perspective ( one of my B.A. is in Chinese/Han History) I believe the key to the debate lies in the Quan (i.e the form) containing methodologies, strategies and tactics, a Quan is a book cataloging a style... If there was a YLC style one should be able to trace it back to it's origins. (as popular as YLC stories are, it's hard to believe his style died out, or was transmitted only to a super small select few.

The logical is : Hao style (Wu Yuxiang ) is directly linked to YLC... there is documented proof to this. And that style mimics Wu style, in form and function. Wu Quan You was trained by Bon Hou... Again, there is documented proof, no record of Bon Hou ever departed from what his dad taught) Yang Jianhou, Ban-hou's brother, this side of the family, created YCF's family style. (I believe Bon Hou's son trained Yang Chen fu, due to Yang Jianhou dying before Chen Fu decided to take on the family busines. The raer Shou Hou style , from what I've seen, is a small circle version of what Chen fu's was doing.

AGAIN.... ( Shou hou & Chen Fu's) mimics in form and function the Hao and Wu style. (e,g. at the core ... all are a long fists, all have between around a 85 to 110 movements give or take, have the Ba-Men strategically located in or around the same locations in the Quan. And all use a similar shen fa

Its' extremely Hard to argue against the logic those previous facts bring to the table

[Doc Stier]

OK. No problem. I'm not interested in selling you or anyone else on anything, but simply reporting on my experiences in meeting older Chinese Yang Style TCC teachers throughout the USA and Canada since early 1961. Believe whatever you want to. Your opinion is as good as any other here.

Regarding the ongoing debate over legitimate early form sets, it really doesn't matter, imo. What matters is the ability to personally demonstrate the benefits of whatever forms you train, i.e. the resultant physical athletic development, internal cultivation development, and personal combat skills. The first three generations of the Yang family excelled in all of the above, so it's not unreasonable to expect that those who learned from them and seriously practiced the same training regimen would get similar results.

This is oftentimes a stumbling block for some who claim to train and teach the forms and methods of the early Yang family masters, yet fail to replicate their levels of achievement in all of the aforementioned benefits, even after decades of supposedly training the same system. So, it's also extremely difficult to argue against these facts as well.

[origami_itto]

Yes, you've clearly got all this figured out. Please carry on.

I apologize for hurting your feelings here.

But it's time to catch the research up to 1996.

The claims are just ridiculous, Graham.

Li Yu Yu died in 1892 and left a handwritten copy of "Wang Zongyue's Taijiquan Treatise" and your counter is "They could have added the title later"

Wu Chen Ching died in 1884 and his use of Taijiquan twice in his commentary and expansion of the aforementioned Taijiquan Treatise

Wu Ru Qing died in 1887 and called his writing "Treatise on Taijiquan" which starts with "this art is called 'Tai Chi'"

Wu Yu Hsiang died in 1880 and presented the Salt Shop Classics in 1852.

And in 1867 Ma Tung Wen produced his collection of classics, which included "Wang Zongyue's Taijiquan Treatise" with the title.

So who is it that WASN'T calling it Taijiquan till 1912?

Maybe the Yangs and Wus learned something good from the Chens, then added a little of the secret sauce they got from the salt shop (or at least attributed to that find), kept it mostly to themselves for 50 years or so, then when later generations started showing it off the Chens started working on incorporating what they could discern of it into their art and taking the name for brand recognition?

Don't you think that's possible? Just asking questions.
Do we even know this "Chen Village" exists? My friend said that place was actually called Bakersfield till the 30s.

[Doc Stier]

Do we even know this "Chen Village" exists? My friend said that place was actually called Bakersfield till the 30s.

Hahaha! I heard that Bakersfield is generally considered to be the armpit of California. Is that true? LoL

[everything]

facts

not really sure we "care" about the facts. is lebron james' son good at basketball? sure. is he that good? of course he's not on lebron's level. a lot of people say, no, he's not really that good. that is all "subjective" but when a lot of people have the same "subjective" opinion, it's not a fact, but it's sort of "subjective-objective". that is what this seems like. like trying to compare Ali vs. Tyson. it cannot really be done. but this is much, much worse. people are using "facts" around some "forms" to make specious conclusions. which is why the "speculation" is what's most interesting. it's not really a "debate" that can be solved.

[GrahamB]

Yes, obviously, if we accept the handwritten documents as legitimate sources produced in the 19th century then somebody was using the name Taijiquan in the 19th century, but it's never that simple. Why were they doing this? What was happening in China at that point in history?

Good questions to ask are:

why does the text itself refer to the art by a different name?

what was Wu Yuxiang trying to achieve with the promotion of these documents as part of his 'origin story' for Taijiquan? Are these documents an attempt to introduce a new name "Taijiquan" to an existing art that was already being practiced and called something else?

these texts did not come to light before the 1912 Taijiquan classics book was published. Why is that?

and of course why are there no public references to "Taijiquan" until after 1912...

The use of a name obviously carries cultural and political significance. Before wading blindly into this minefield, may I suggest, as a primer into how political the unearthing of new Taiji documents has become, a re-reading of Douglas Wiles' seminal article on the marital arts studies journal Fighting Words: Four New Document Finds Reignite Old Debates in Taijiquan Historiography

https://storage.googleapis.com/jnl-uc-j ... 170907.pdf


Abstract

Martial arts historiography has been at the center of China’s culture wars and a cause célèbre between traditionalists and modernizers for the better part of a century. Nowhere are the stakes higher than with the iconic art of taijiquan, where, based on a handful of documents in the Chen, Wu, and Yang lineages, traditionalists have mythologized the origins of taijiquan, claiming the Daoist immortal Zhang Sanfeng as progenitor, while modernizers won official government approval by tracing the origins to historical figures in the Chen family.

Four new document finds, consisting of manuals, genealogies, and stele rubbings, have recently emerged that disrupt the narratives of both camps, and, if authentic, would be the urtexts of the taijiquan ‘classics’, and force radical revision of our understanding of the art. This article introduces the new documents, the circumstances of their discovery, their contents, and the controversies surrounding their authenticity and significance, as well as implications for understanding broader trends in Chinese culture and politics.

[origami_itto]

History is easy if you just throw out everything you disagree with.

[Bao]

History is easy if you just throw out everything you disagree with.

Very true. Otoh you need to know a lot about history to have something to disagree with. At least if you want to be taken seriously.